THE Xi Yang case has raised grave questions about Beijing's policy on the control of information, the politicised justice system and the stepped-up campaign of intimidation against the Hong Kong media.
Since the Ming Pao journalist's detention on September 27 last year, the authorities have never supplied evidence to support the claim that Xi had stolen and made roundabout inquiries about state financial secrets.
There is little doubt, however, that the Beijing court could, in time-honoured Chinese fashion, justify the incrimination and even the 12-year jail term.
The key is what constitutes ''state secrets'', one of the murkiest concepts in a very muddled legal framework.
The State Secret Law stipulates that anything having to do with ''state security and interests'' constitutes a state secret, leaving the authorities with arbitrary powers of interpretation.
In practice, the administration's definition of ''state secrets'', like those regarding ''counter-revolutionary crimes'', ''anti-government activities'' and other aspects of security, is based on war-time considerations of the 1930s and 40s, when the fledgling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was under threat of extinction through persecution by the Kuomintang and the warlords.
